host: if you want to reach us by e-mail -- yesterday testifying on the issue of migrant worker earns that stephen colbert appeared in character and from congress. here is some video from this.

he introduces himself and sets the tone of his appearance from mr. de. >> my name is stephen colbert and i am an american citizen. it is an honor and privilege to be here today. congresswoman lofgren asked me to share my experience spending one day as a migrant worker. i am happy to use my celebrity to draw attention to this complicated issue. i hope that my star power can bump this hearing up to cspan-1. host: appreciate the reference. if you want to weigh in on this topic the numbers are on your screen the political was one of many papers to run on this topic. -- the political was one of the many papers to run on this topic. guest: that is some of the

context from yesterday. host: stephen colbert and jon stewart are planning rallies in october. the role of celebrities is next whether it comes to influencing legislators or influencing the public at large. are democrats line is first in houston, texas. caller: that was the first i have seen that. it is a mockery and tragedy to this country to allow someone up there who is a comedian to act like that. i think it is proof positive of where we are in this stage of the game. it is just mockery and foolishness. there is no respect for the office. i am a democrat, but i really don't understand what my party

is doing. it seems like they're committing political suicide. i do not understand anymore what is going on in politics and the world. it seems like to meet that they are keeping the people entertained long enough to do something. in my opinion, i really feel like this whole new world order think is really real. agenda 21 and these type of things. host: do you think there is long-term political fallout from this? caller: honestly and truly, i think it is the tv programmers and whatever they choose to talk about is what we will see.

tv program is reality. there is not a lot of free thinkers out there. i say i am a democrat because i have always been for the working man. i believe we need infrastructure projects in this country. i am also conservative-minded host: you say you are for the working man and part of the reason stephen colbert was there was to highlight the role of the working men especially migrant workers. caller: still, he did it coy and his demeanor and if you look at some of his other stuff -- from time to time, i find it humorous in the proper setting. that was not the proper setting. host: we will leave it there. to atlanta, georgia on our republican line, good morning. caller: good morning.

if you ask a committee and a question, you should expect a funny answer. why was a comedian that spent one day as a migrant worker appearing in front of congress or even asked to be there. i followed the last colubrid the call themselves a democrat and i call myself a republican. i respect the need for infrastructure projects. i am conservative by nature. i am conservative by nature. host: what does this say about star power and its influence on politics? caller: 2 much influence. you cannot like an idea because you like the character that

presents the idea. a person should be able to make up their own mind on ideas and not use glamour to influence them. host: would have made a difference it mr. colbert would have testified as is normal self and from it -- instead of his tv character? caller: yes, it would abate a difference but i still would not have respected his opinion on migrant workers. he is not qualified to do so. he has no reason to be in that position. there are plenty of people all over the country who work normal jobs who are much more qualified to give an assessment of how it affects america's need for migrant workers. i personally think there is a need for migrant workers. host: philadelphia, pa., on our

democrats line. caller: good morning. i don't understand the big deal. he is an american. whether he is a celebrity or not, he is an american and has an opinion and it was not all, it. if you followed what he said, he made a very serious comment about how much for workers were being sent back and have no rights. let's not forget that the republican party brought in elmo. he is an american and what's the big deal? he has an opinion. host: part of the reason why he was there yesterday talking about my good workers -- this is more. >> i like talking about people don't have power. this seems like one of the least powerful people in the united states for migrant workers who

come in and do our work but don't have any rights as a result. yeah, we still invite them to come here and did the same time asked them to leave. that is an interesting contradiction to me. whatsoever you do for the least of my brothers and these seem like the least of our brothers right now. host: that as part of the testimony from yesterday and congress. pensacola, fla., independent line, good morning. caller: i thought stephen colbert hit the nail on the head. i think you can liken that if a man or woman does not have a sense of purpose or sense of humor to simplify matters, the best thing i can say is that he hit the nail on the head. host: so the, they did not get in the way of the message?

-- so the comedy did not get in the way the message? caller: he was, the but i took what he said -- he was comedy but i took what he said and i think what he said but the nail on the head. host: 8 twitter of your says -- harrington, of delaware, republican line, go ahead. caller: i lived in florida for 30 years and moved to delaware and i used to go to the migrant camps and they were in bad conditions. they really had a time. making a joke of this or making light of the situation is not good. the american workers will not do with the migrant workers do. the young teenagers or young adults will not -- the majority of them will not do this. host: was stephen colbert a good

voice for them? caller: i don't know about that but he brought up an issue also, he is not too much different than those on capitol hill. what are they doing? what are their ideas? host: expend on that. caller: we are expecting things to happen. how long does it take to get something done? a lot of talk but no action. host: one of the representatives host: one of the representatives watching the event who offered this on the subject. " i am on the subcommittee but this was a joke." we continue on with our look at celebrities and influencing public policy and looking at stephen colbert from yesterday or talking about the overall role of celebrities as part of public policy. the numbers are on your screen

you can also talk was on twitter and send us an e-mail. the pages of the financial times, christopher caldwell takes a look at the larger issue of politics when it comes to committee and to offer opinions on a variety of topics. he mentioned stephen colbert and jon stewart and the rally they are planning. here is what he has to say. those are some of the pots he

shares this morning. danbury, conn., david on a republican line. caller: the differentiation between a committee in an politician these days is very meager. all in all, we have to put people with the right credentials. yes, he did have to be a migrant laborer for a day. that is the only context. he can make satire off that and make a mockery. our people work hard and it is not such a joke. that is part of capitalism. we give them the right to work their way up. they cannot make citizenship because unfortunately at the moment, we cannot anyone else to

our roster because of our financial crisis which is hurting us. people are leaving more than coming. we should give them an opportunity to come. for him to criticize and make a mockery is not going to help. host: huntsville, alabama is next on our republican librarian caller: thank you. i don't have a problem with having him up there. they should get bill mahr up there, too. we have comedians in our politicians anyway. they are all canadians. they get up there with their slogans -- they are all comedians. the media is more celebrity- oriented, too. they write a book and read all about them cells. every journalist is on television and they want to write a book and promote them

sells bread i don't have a problem with him being on that hill. host: tax cuts are possibly still on the agenda next florida, go ahead. caller: i would like to underscore what the lady said earlier. there has been celebrities

testifying on capitol hill. elmo from sesame street has testified on capitol hill before. people should not have a problem with what happened yesterday i see what is going on here as one more manifestation of something that has been going on in my part. i see a lot of ladies and gentleman in my party complaining about things and situations which were full of fact for-six years ago. it makes one pause and wonder why are we rallying about these things now as opposed to four- six years ag? it lends a lie to what we want to do. everybody feels? enough already. everybody wants more fiscal responsibility but we have been out of control for quite some time now. we are complaining now?

when people are trying to put things in order? moreover, we are not helping -- my party is not helping get people back to work and back on their feet. host: we will leave it there. another twitter of your says -- west hartford, conn., independent line. caller: first of all, were these migrant workers here illegally or illegal immigrants? i am not sure he made the distinction we will never know. if they are migrant workers and working here illegally, i am sure the labor laws apply to number 3, there is an incredible by as presented in the media, very subtle but very

consistent about the amnesty of legislation which, by the way, congress will probably try to force through during the lame- duck session. if that happens, i hope the people in d.c. -- i need to criticize cspan on this. i have been watching since its inception host: before you go too far, talk about the celebrities and public policy. caller: i don't think they should be involved in public policy. most of them lead a sheltered life. most of them have never had a real job. we have 10%-20% unemployment in this country and we still issue about 100,000 migrant workers into the country. to say that americans would not do this -- who did it before we had moderate workers doing this? to say such a thing is an insult

to the working class of this country who have the strongest work ethic in the world. i need to get back to the cspan issue. it has been patently obvious for the last couple of months and the last few weeks especially when congress was considering the immigration in the military budget bill. i have only once seen someone on your program that has taken the position that i think most americans do, especially in our economic crisis and that is do not grant amnesty. it is to enforce laws we have on the books and get those jobs for americans and returning military people that nobody has compassion for, thank you. host: jacksonville, fla.,

caller: i called about the celebrity thing. i want to make one comment about the guy who just called. it is not what sees them as much as i do. as far as the celebrity and particularly canadians influencing public policy, -- and particularly, medians influencing public policy, there is credence to that. the number one example is glen beck. he is as much a buffoon as any celebrity or comedy and i have seen. it seems like he has had enormous influence on public policy and the tea party. it might be good cspan shows points and counterpoints. i think it would be a good representation of an opposite

view. host: orlando, fla., clint eastwood was mayor of a town for a while and ronald reagan was an actor. new bern, north carolina, republican line. caller: when stephen colbert did the immigrant worker for a few hours, he did not work for $3.50 per hour. they are the reason our food is so cheap. we must appreciate. the illegal aliens coming here and working for a little and being kicked across the border. paris helton was not allowed into japan last week. the reason was because of her recent drug possession. the reason they did not let her in was because of animal rights. she fights for animal rights and the japanese abuse whales, dolphins, and penguins and fish.

the japanese are taking our jobs and dumping products in america. the japanese are the evil empire and we should never have ended the war when we did. douglas macarthur said japanese should only be spoken in help. host: your thoughts aside, as far as celebrities, do they help or hinder these kind of causes? caller: stephen colbert injured. he should never have done that. that was stupid. he should not have been in character. he should have said this is what happens to poor immigrants that work here, work for a few months, are not paid much, and are thrown out of the country. that is what we do to mexicans at least in north carolina. host: talking about foreign profits is michael fletcher. $1 trillion according to analysts, if you were to read

it. as long as the problems are invested outside the united states. this is an opinion corporations often taken them reason they pay a lower tax. senate democrats plan to push a bill including a provision that would repeal a tax free world from firms that would move jobs to other countries and import the product back on board our tax policy should benefit working americans, not step in the back. democrats estimate that the price tag of the bill at to what million dollars. senator harry reid was blocked by mitch mcconnell. that set the stage for a tuesday showdown when there will be republican opposition. west virginia, next. west virginia, next. caller: i think stephen colbert

is an american and he has a right to say what he wants to say. that is how the man gets his views across. host: the fact that he is a celebrity -- caller: why shouldn't he? we say what we want to said. why can he say what he wants to say? host: people talked about his qualifications and talking about this issue. caller: that is how he gets what you want to say across. if you watch his show, which i do, him and jon stewart bring things to the forefront. they do it in a comical way. many people don't get it. we are all going to get a lot of field jaws because republicans

are leading us down that path. there is such a gap between poor people and rich people is that we will need those jobs and fighting immigrants for those jobs if large class people don't wake up and vote. wake up and vote. host: new york , our republican line per caller: good morning. celebritiesk that should be in position to make comments all over the place. i believe that we are in this social networking telling everybody twitters and we have facebook all over the place and everybody is supposed to have a comment. everybody that has a comment is supposed to be in form but that is not true. nobody is thinking in the united states and no one is serious. it seems like they are serious about what they do and everything is on camera and everybody wants to be on tv.

even today, when the kids are growing up today, they want to be famous. what does that really mean? everybody wants to be famous. they get on tv in the public eye and that is how america is right now. i am not really happy with that. i think we need more thinkers perry host: for his short appearance in congress, he generated a lot of talk about the larger issue of migrant labor. could, to be an effective source to bring these issues to the forefront? caller: it could bring that issue to the forefront, but the issue is who are you bringing it to? are you bringing it to people not informed? people don't vote today any more. we are looking at the people who vote in any situation and the numbers are very low. what are we doing?

we are leaving it up to celebrities to try to bring us to a place where we need to be? we need to do some thinking on our own. we need to be informed and participate more and we need to be able to do things in a way that will make sense for our own salvation. host: fort wayne, indiana, democrats line caller:. good morning. what ever stephen colbert contributed is probably 10 times as much as the republicans have contributed in the last two years they are such a hypocrite on this idea. i urge everybody else to look up and see the difference between the muslim religion and christian religion. there really is not that much difference except for jesus is the son of god and the christian

religion and he is another profit in the muslim religion. if you look at the republicans, they missed the terrorism threat. they are using it for commercials even when there -- barack obama has kept us saved for the past two years. has anybody on the republican side said anything like that? host: as far as this question, we will continue for another 15 minutes. before that, let me get you a taste of "news and"makers program. what is motivating republicans to vote against incumbents in primaries? if incumbents lose primaries especially in campaigns. >> if you take a look at the voting record of mike castle, he voted for cap and trade and a

number of things. it is an issue of what are we spending money on and how we are spending and our people getting value for their dollars? people around the country do not believe they are getting value for their tax dollars. we are united in the senate behind a nominee's of our party and as our goal is to get them elected in the fall. we are working together and working for our nominees. joe miller is the in alaska for the republican party and has our full support. the people of delaware have spoken in the republican primary. christie no dollar is there and that is who we are supporting. host: that is centered b johnaraso tomorrow at 10:00. -- that is senator john -- that is senator john baraso tomorrow at 10:00.

alexandria, louisiana, our republican line caller:. i had a comment. i believe stephen colbert has brought out the issue of immigrant workers. immigrant workers. i know that here in my town some democrats workers have taken some construction jobs away from the local people. i know several contractors in this area such as she brought workers and cement finishers who are no longer in business because of mexican workers. at one point, there were 200 trucks that showed up and local haulers were not able to get any work because of the amount of trucks that showed up. host: what do you think he does as far as bringing attention to the issue over all? caller: it brings it out into the open.

i don't believe he did a disservice to the immigrant worker. he brought it to the forefront. host: the financial times this morning is looking at credit unions. brooklyn, new york, thanks for

waiting, our independent law caller: i just wanted to say that i am for and against the celebrities comments. it does not matter who the celebrity is. if it is someone like lady gaga, i am not interested or m billahr. se takean penn -- s takeean penn doing -- take sean penn and the issue with katrina -- guest: host: does that matter? caller: the celebrity might make

me listen if they are not promoting themselves. lady gaga promotes herself. she promotes her own thing. right now, the more important issue is this is a distraction we have the war in iran. we had two department of justice lawyers who resigned. one was under the whistle-blower law. celebrities take off -- take us off the main track. we will end up in a big war like we did in iraq. host: the associated press says -- madison, fla., the role of

celebrities and public policy, our republican line. caller: i am grateful to be able to say that i think stephen colbert for bringing up the topic and cspan. he is the only public figure who has spoken to this. nobody has the courage to talk about our desperate need for these workers and to emphasize

that we should treat them fairly. we need a work visa program. i feel grateful. i hope the topics states there and i hope we become hon. in the way we treat these people. we really need them. host: what is long term affect of celebrities in these roles they play as far as public policy? caller: this is the sort of thing that cspan picks up as you are doing today and people who can make decisions begin to think that maybe we should look at this. we have an obligation as well as a legal public -- legal obligation. i would be in favor. i would be in favor. the celebrity addressing an important issue and nonself promoting it is important host: pennsylvania, a democrat line, go ahead caller: thank you for

taking my call. there are two things that are important. there is a challenge issued to typical americans to work in a field for a day to see what it is like for farm workers person. 17 people out of 350 million took him off on it. phar-mor is very hard and i did it once as a kid -- farm workers are hard and i did it once as a kid. would you be spending time this morning on farm labor if stephen colbert had not been on the program? this would never have come to fore. i think he is entitled to have his opinion whether you agree with it or not. host: federal workers become a

flashpoint in the midterm vote is the headline in ""the washington post." that story is in "the washington post." "the new york times has a story out of afghanistan. army as cited limits on the the visualization of casualties. a top army official has ordered that images of dead or wounded

casualty's may not be made public during hearings. next call is hammond, indiana, republican line. caller: good morning and thank

you for taking my call. this is about the migrant workers. i understand they are hard- working people and they come to this country for a better life. my problem is that we accept this. the way i feel about this is that we have people in the country that don't want to do this job, but what about all these prisoners in these prisons and they are living and the taxpayer is paying for them? they have medical if they get hurt or sick and they get taken care of. why don't we take those prisoners out of the prisons and put them in the fields and let them do something for society instead of just living off the taxpayer? host: what did stephen colbert

bring to this whole issue? caller: i am upset with that. i'm upset that the democratic party tries to make fun of the republican party and i think we should do something with the prisoners in prison. they are there. they are doing nothing for society at all they have done something wrong to begin with. why don't we put them in the fields and let them do that job and take these illegals and put them back of their own country? they stressed the fact that one gentleman had a heat stroke from being in the field in 100-degree temperatures. i think he went through some kind of stress coming into this country that is stressful. i believe these prisoners should

donate to society somehow. host: of software -- -- off of twitter -- elizabethtown, tenn., democrats blind. caller: by myself on. what can i do? host: talk to me now. caller: it is good to talk to you. i am talking as an american. we need to be fair and we are all brothers and sisters and human beings. it is a shame -- it is a disgrace that these people are treated this way. i think we should contact people in congress and tell them the good things they have done.

everybody you can to do something about this. they will not do it on their own. host: thank you. there is a photograph of two kids standing in front of a vending machine that vends karats per in --carrots.

veronica, wisconsin, on our republican line, good morning. caller: what is the role of celebrities and public policy? stephen colbert was a joke and that is his job. the job the people sitting on the panel listening to him or the people who did not do their job yesterday the only person that i saw that even attempted to gain a hold of this thing was john conyers saying to submit his statement in writing. the chair of the committee said to make this a joke. what i am mostly disappointed in is that the republicans on the committee did not walk out. that would have made a statement. it was not worth it. the fact that stephen colbert work for one day in a field to show what migrant workers do, my god, i grew up working in farmer fields in wisconsin picking

rocks. that is what you did when you are a high-school student and there were no other jobs. you picked rocks before the farmers would plow and plant. i could have, and testified and said what it was like to work and 100-degree temperatures. i had as much experience as stephen colbert did. that is not the kind of person that should be in front of our congress giving testimony host: you don't think he brought attention to the issue at least? caller: he made the congress looks stupid. there is enough attention on illegal immigration with our federal government suing the state of arizona over their immigration bill. there is plenty of attention on illegal immigration. we don't need this kind of attention. we need thoughtful, in-depth

discussion, not this kind of fluff discussion. when you have people talking about serving tomato in may spa, damage -- denigrates the whole discussion. this a serious discussion. this absolutely makes it a joke and it is not a joke. this is a serious discussion from a national security issue to a cost issue. across the board, there are some many things that are so important and it disappoints me and bankers meet that he was there and that people actually did not speak up and say it was a joke or walk out and show their disgust. host: one more call, laredo, texas. caller: this is a first for me.

i believe that mr. colbert is correct in providing a comment to the way he does. sometimes political comments are too serious. he brought out the attention and put us back on the republicans back to make an impact. the lady that just called said that she worked in the fields. he made an impact he did the right thing. that is why the discussions going on right now. my 97-year-old mother in texas picked cotton.

who were the others? they were polish, black people, i myself picked watermelons and onions in the fields in the area. to make a mockery and saying that colbert did not do the right thing, he did. he made an impact host: we will leave it there and thank you for all who participated this morning. we will talk about politics, specifically republicans as they look at their 2010 midterm strategy and our guest is timothy carney who was a senior political commentator and he will join us after this. ♪ >> this weekend, american history tv, a rare look of a personal belongings of george washington and what they reveal about the father of our country.

it is a special program on the music of curtis mayfield and the civil-rights movement also the leadership style of winston churchill and how it compares to leaders today. 48 hours telling the american story every weekend. american history tv, on c-span 3. today on c-span 2's book tv, the national book festival from our nation's capital. our coverage begins at 9:30 a.m. with interviews, events, and your phone calls. go to book-tv.org. >> you don't get to choose the moment when the opportunity to shake your country comes your way all you get to choose is what you do when it does. >> of british deputy prime defends nick clegg the fan--

his move to form a coalition government at 9:00 on sunday night. >> for all the people in the book, there are many mistakes they might have done in their lives but moving from the south was not one of them. >> between 1915 and 1970, nearly millions of blacks migrated to the north. that is on 8:00 on cspan's "q &a." >> [captioning performed by national captioning institute] " continues. host: what is the strategy for the republicans today and how does it compare with the contract for america? guest: the republicans are looking back at 1994 and hoping this is like that but bigger. that is the idea behind this pledge. the republicans are running against the democrats but do they have anything to offer? in 1994, it was heavier on

government reform. this time around, it is heavier on tax cuts and on on doing what obama has done or is planning on doing. frankly, if i and my political strategist and advising republicans, i would say to talk about democrats as much applause possible and talk about republicans as little as possible. this pledge will go out there and i don't know if we will see them talking about it a lot for talking about democratic failures. host: is there anything specific lined up in strategy? we have one more week in congress before they go out and campaign. guest: it looks like it is dead but it looks like what will happen with the bush tax cuts where if congress does not act before the end of the year, taxes go back up to where they were in 2003 and.

0. they can act after the election and that would probably safer in a lame duck session. a lot of the conservatives i have talked to are not happy. this does not include an earmark ban or much in the way of specifics of cutting spending it does not have an ambitious goal. it goes back to the end of the bush administration while at the end of the bush administration, there were huge runaway spending. the pledge is not a great rallying cry. host: look at the setting and a lumber mill outside the beltway and you have legislators showing up. what is the goal as far as the

senate is concerned? what was the message? guest: there has been an effort for the last year-and-a-half by republicans to ride a all obama /pelosi from san francisco and obama is an ivy league guy and we are looking out for the regular guy. they have to know that jobs are the main thing and that is what they are trying to do. they are rolling up their sleeves and getting down to business and that is what republicans want to run on and that is probably prudent. some of that is probably the entire-elitist sentiment. host: some people were not happy with the pledge. does that indicate a discontent about where they are going as a party? guest: i think they are not listening close enough to the tea party. to say they are cutting spending a little bit is not listening to the anger out there. you would think with losses in

delaware and pennsylvania and colorado and alaska that after all those losses, they would act drastically. they have not. it is at the edges on spending. i don't think they are quite getting it. i was hoping to see stuff limiting lawmakers' becoming lobbyists and limiting the access of revolving door lobbyists and there was none of that3 that is the thing that people are upset about with obama. host: the numbers are on your screen you can talk with timothy

carney. there was a book released called," young guns." what message does that book say to conservatives as a whole? -- this isn't know paul ryan and two other republican congressman who are fairly young. erick kanter is there. paul ryan is the leading budget and economic policy guide for the republicans. i think it was fred barnes called them the young guns and they put out this book. i was at their book launch party. they are saying that they have new ideas and they are not just new gingrich or ronald reagan. when i hear the ideas and they

supported the wall street bailout. they stood up to obama's the expanding but many guys went along with that. when i see republicans pushing new ideas, it is a minority of them that sound like they have understood how deeply the republicans failed last time they had control of congress. if they get control both chambers this time, i think republicans might regret it because they might not have learned lesson. host: the republican response to obama's weekly address and this is about new ideas. >> can you blame them? as a result of the economically disastrous policies of the current administration, millions of americans are out of work today. our children will be saddled with the deficit and debt that is by every definition out of control.

we have more people depending on food stamps to feed their families than at any point in history. the economy is so dire that one in six americans has to rely on government assistance for financial support, one in six. the land of opportunity has become the land of shrinking prosperity. americans across the country are outraged and so are we. just as john hancock bowl flea signed his name to the declaration of independence, even britain's king george could read it, i want to say this slowly so there is no room for misinterpretation -- our government has failed us. from the billion dollar bail out to the stimulus package that failed to stimulate, to the government takeover of health care, to the democratic majority in washington who refuses to listen,

i am speaking to you on behalf of republicans to tell you we have been listening host: how would you interpret that? guest: politically, i think it is the right message and people see the runaway spending and the debt as being disastrous and immoral. that is an element of the deficit spending and the debt that you cannot spend more than you have and leave it to your children. i think that is fine. ryan and cantor both voted for the bailout that he is attacking the republicans have a great thing to run against. what are they going to do with it when they get into power? you have your d.c. conservative circles. they don't need to worry very much on capitol hill. when you look at the tea party,

if these guys start pass earmakr and there is no ban on their pledge, if they see republicans start earmarking spending, that will take the air out of the tea party push that republicans have gotten. they have not said they would stop spending and not have earmarks. they have a good message in broad terms but nothing that reassures the american people host: we are talking about republicans in these 45 minutes, looking at mid term strategy. calls for you are lined up. good morning. caller: i just want to say that you are no john hancock.

i want to thank the republicans. they have been saying no to everything. finally, they come out and tell us what they stand for. for 30 years, we have swallowed what they had. for these people that do not want to vote, you are either lying or crazy because we have had 30 years of that. there is no time to switch back now. i hope you will check out my website. guest: an interesting thing, people and democrats, they talk as if somehow bill clinton's tax rates magically the cost the economic boom in the '90s as good as it was. maybe they are not counting the

last 10 months when the stock market went down. why can't we say the spending levels of the 1990's was a part of that? that is the beauty of divided government. divided government, if republicans get the house and/or the senate, it could be that that is the best formula for eliminating spending. it is the only time that spending was flat or went down. it is when you had republicans in control of the house and democrats in control of the white house. if what you are concerned about is a runaway spending and that sort of thing, this could be the best combination. host: there is a story in ""the washington post." would you agree with that? guest: they would freeze --

rollback the hiring. they would not lay off federal workers, but for every two that left, they would only rehire one. it really is interesting to see how in the last few months, this idea of government workers versus the rest of us. a town in california, the city manager and a few others were paying themselves ridiculous amounts of money. they had criminal charges brought against them. people look at these public- sector unions as being a powerful special interest, working against the people. for a town like washington, d.c., that is a very interesting dynamic. i think there could be a lot of political gains.

host: there are real economic gains. guest: as far as, is that a large portion of the government spending? no. medicare and social security, that is where the real spending cuts are going to have to be done it. if you look at the state level, it is not just salaries that they are getting, it is the benefits and lifetime health care and pensions. these things are dramatically underfunded. on the federal level, we have not hit those crisis points yet. it could be a situation, if congress acts now to reform pensions of federal employees, that could ward off another disaster like what the states are seeing or what we might see it with social security. host: john, republican line.

caller: good morning. i think republican strategy should be to just work on their record. fiscal conservatives -- stop this runaway spending. people are tired of high taxes. i think even republican strategists like karl rove should get behind kristine macdonald in delaware and just unite their party and get that whole group out of their. in this country is a center- right country. we do not want radical, liberal, progressive agenda, taxing us. it is not the right way for my children, my grandchildren.

guest: we are a center-right country. i agree. what i am upset about, because i am a conservative, free-market guy, once government programs get instituted, people don't get instituted, people don't like them getting rolled back, for the most part. this is why some conservatives are talking about obamacare needs to be appealed now. it has happened with medicare and medicaid and social security. we could not unto them. maybe we could block them during times of crises, but we cannot undo them. there is a divide between the establishment of the republican party and the insurgency in the republican party. republican party. there is and metaphorical

epicenter of lobbyists here in town. the current republican party leadership is very close with the lobbyists. the lobbyists. you have bob dole, a lobbyist, bill fritz. two of the recent majority leaders are lobbyists. and looks like there is a connection. then you have these guys coming in -- paul almost got no money when he was running and the primary. these guys are running against the establishment. that tiff represents a divide in

the party. that is my question, when these republicans come, will they stay the pitchfork-waving supporters? it is what the polls show. he is pulling right now. if the polls show he has a good chance of winning, he will do it. if not, i don't know what he will do. that is part of the problem. these people, they have been lifetime politicians. this is why conservative people should warned against career politicians. they will do whatever it takes, the vote however it takes, hurt the party whatever it takes to do that. it is a small enough state. it is geographically and population-wise that it is

possible he could pull it off. it is also possible that he will most likely be taking from democrats rather than christine o'donnell. host: will the democrats win over christine o'donnell? guest: a lot of people say that is bogus. she has a lot of energy. she will be running against the health care bill and against spending. he will be running against she said something about witchcraft. that is a huge advantage for her. host:money wise? guest: she pulled in a million dollars in the first day. he will have the establishment of his party behind him joe biden can go into the district. you have a popular former

lieutenant governor, no relation to me, named john carney. he is known statewide. he will have a lot of advantages that she won't. the tea party proved time and again that enthusiasm -- we will see what it is worth. host: stephen, independent line. caller: my cousin just retired from the freedom of information office. i wanted to give you my views on this. i have seen all of this across the country for years. all republicans have to say is california, illinois, new york, and a couple of other states in there. they -- there is mostly democratic senators in congress, and that is what is bringing the country down.

[unintelligible] it would go a long way to help this country to get ahead. amen for the tea party. we do need jobs. thank you. guest: i agree with a lot of those sentiments and i think they are widely held. i wonder if the people will be saying the same things about republicans in two years, four years, or six years. that the country is being run wrong, overspending, and taxation. the fact that barbara boxer in california, she could lose.

harry reid in nevada, to me, that is one of the most interesting races. he is running against a state senator, who beat the candidate in the primary. she had tea party backing. he is having fundraisers posted for him constantly in new york and in d.c. but all of these lobbyists. he has republicans backing and. -- he has republicans backing him up. there are some other republican lobbyists that are getting behind harry reid. the drug industry is taking out advertisements in favor of harry reid because they benefit quite a bit from the health care bill. reid is the quintessential k street candidate.

his opponent is basically running as an outsider. host: do you know of the polling of that race? guest: she is not popular either for some of her behavior. she says things and has to stick her foot in her mouth. there are both well down below 50% and are about even. if you are significantly below 50%, the incumbent usually is the one that has to worry more. i am not going to predict what will happen there. i would bet on sharon ankle beating harry reid. he has so much money coming in to help save him. host: fort worth, texas. our democrat line. please give me a

minute. i don't know where to start. the biggest aramark was the senator from alaska. -- the biggest year mark was the senator from alaska. -- the biggest earmark was from the center of alaska. it became overwhelming. now it includes construction, road construction, and all of that. all of the republicans must have great jobs and great health care act. it is unbelievable. mitt romney running for president? my god. he made his money by buying up companies and shipping jobs overseas. it is unbelievable. people need to know why has happened so they can tell what is happening now. here in texas, these idiots that are doing our textbooks, you

know, that is going to affect many states and our governor -- host: you put out a lot there so we elect our guest respond. guest: he was the leading -- at least one of the leading porkers along with bob bird of west virginia. many of the big spenders were republicans. the fact that the pledge does not say that republicans are going to stop your marks should be upsetting to people who worry about this. romney, a lotroitt of what he told companies to do was to send jobs overseas where they are cheaper.

it is interesting because while there is quite a bit of anti- wall street sentiment going on it these days, there are a lot of republicans now that have worked in banking and it does not seem to be hurting them. if it is hurting them, it is hurting them in the republican primary. primary. you have rob portman and others that have ties to that industry, and it does not seem to be hurting them. then keeping jobs in america, that does not seem to be at catching on it this year. from what i looked at in the polls, candidates are not making a lot of headway with jobs going overseas and this year. host: what is the upcoming

election mean for the president? what will be his guest strategy? what will be his guest strategy? guest: he has two options. he has three options. he can try to do what bill clinton did, which is to work with the republicans to take away some of their fire. clinton passed welfare reform, which was one of them. also, he set up the republicans for failure in such a way -- or, you can set up the republicans for failure. that means using gridlock for a political advantage. that is one other strategy that obama can use it. the other is maybe try to ignore them. if i am the president, i have my

wall street think, i stimulus past, my health care bill, now what i am going to do is too small government reforms, actually implement them, look for government waste and trim it because there is no shortage of that. obama could become ronald reagan in year three. i look for some combination of all of that. as far as the economy more broadly, it is recovering people say jobs will follow, it will just take longer. it may be obama believes that. host: the president addressed -- >> the recession of 2008 is over. if you are one of the millions of americans who lost your home, your job, or your savings, this news is of little comfort or value. it yes, the economy is growing

instead of shrinking as it was in 2008 and in the beginning of 2009. we are gaining private sector we are gaining private sector jobs each month. but we have to keep pushing to promote growth that will generate the jobs that we need and repair the terrible damage the recession has done it. that is why i proposed a series of additional steps to accelerate tax breaks for businesses that buy equipment now and promote innovation by american companies. a new initiative to build america's roads, rails, and on ways that will put folks to work and make our country more competitive. host: your thoughts? guest: that is not very different from what republicans talked about, tax credit, building some infrastructure. i know republicans have fired back on the president's plan for

this. i do not believe that would work to stimulate the economy. i think getting rid of some of the uncertainty about taxes and regulation and rolling back regulations would be one of the more important things government could do. politically, i think it is impossible to talk about that. why do we have a research and development tax credit? why should that spending be favored over other spending? let's give everybody a tax cut across the board. you are not hearing that from republicans. they are not engaging him on a specific level. host: buffalo, new york, republican lined. caller: it almost sounded like a corporate tax cut for america. being a fiscal conservative like myself --

[unintelligible] those are my comments, thank you. guest: this is what baffles me. if you read my writing, you know this is my pet issue. corporate welfare should be the easiest target for republicans to go after. there are hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate welfare that congress lays out over that decade. they have government agencies explicitly set up corporations, the export/import bank. these research and development tax credits, or a windmill tax credit, which are in the form of checks directly to companies. look, this stuff is corporate welfare. make the democrats stand up for

-- the reason we need to give these checks to general electric is because it makes democrats defend -- make the democrats defend corporate welfare. i agree with you. the fact that republicans are leaving that alone shows and they might be closer to their k street friends. host: 10 more minutes with timothy carney, senior political columnist of the "washington examiner." caller: good morning. i have two points for you. one is, we constantly hear there is a trade imbalance. foreign companies send their products here, and when we send our products to overseas

companies and other countries, they have it tariffs. i want to know if the tea party and the republicans are really for the workers in this country. wake up our government to do something. it is obvious we have a trade imbalance, and it is killing us. it is not going to make any difference. it would ever obama putin or the others put in, it will not matter if we do not have jobs. what really depressed me, on wednesday, i watched the disclosure act bill that was put up by democrats to limit foreign money in corporations. it got voted down, 39

republicans voted it down so they could not go into a discussion. i think everything we are talking about is all noise if foreign corporations were lobbying to get this bill killed, and republicans went along with it. could you explain that to me? guest: i think the disclosure act was a sinister bit of policy by the democrats. i am a big critic. i think lobbying is too powerful. i think corporate influence in washington is way too strong. first of all, the background is that the supreme court recently in a decision it struck down a lot because citizens united was a group that tried to publish a

dvd critical of hillary clinton. it turned out to be illegal under campaign finance laws. think about that. somebody put out a video about the most powerful woman in the country at that time, the front- runner for president of the runner for president of the united states at that time, and the government was saying no, you cannot put out this video because it was being put out by a nonprofit corporation and it was too close to the election. the supreme court said we cannot ban group from talking about candidates. and so, then, the democrats came in and president obama repeated the mis characterized what was said it. -- what was said. they used the disclosure act to

the degree that it would do anything. it would put huge burdens on any group trying to run an advertisement that directly mentioned or advocated for or against any politician. what it does is make it harder for groups to criticize politicians. any group would have to list their top five donors. chuck schumer would not have to go out there and list his top five donors before talking. that is part of the key. lawmakers benefit from restrictions on companies or groups communicating directly to the voters. if these companies or groups want to get their political agenda pushed, rather than going to voters, the have to go to congress or the lobbyists who then raise money for congress.

the act in my view is a cynical ploy to have an election year issue to the degree that democrats are concerned about companies speaking directly to the people because they feel like companies are going over the head of congress and going straight to the american people rather than going to capitol hill. host: to you think that issue would have seen a different fate if it not have been for an election year? guest: the polls show that if you poll likely voters, republicans are way ahead. if you pull registered voters, there are closer. the pollsters are finding a lack of enthusiasm among democrats. maybe even among liberals. this is an effort by democrats to rally their base off against

republicans. host: bedford, indiana. our republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am a very appreciative the work of the c-span, and that think this country has benefited from the show. those that don't watch or participate are simply in the dark about what is going on. i think mr. timothy carney has answered questions to the very best of his ability and it shows he has a tremendous amount of ability. i am not trying to puff him up or anything, but as a republican since goldwater, the views that i hold today are i think the views of most americans. i think that we need to as a people, we the people, and need

to take back our government. the politicians, not republicans or democrats, the politicians have taken our government. we've the people, both republicans and democrats, we need to devote our conscious, and we need for men of stature, moral stature, to stand up and tell us what they will do to bring back the moral high ground to our country, and that we might be the country that exceeds above all of the rest of exceeds above all of the rest of the world because our founding principles, liberty, the things we hold dear, our freedom.

i believe right now that our entire military ipositioned around the world that the right man it can dictate the way this world needs to go. guest: you brought up morality. i think that is an important aspect. people see that the party being involved largely in economic issues -- spending, the economy, taxes. i think underlying these arguments is a question of morality. is it wrong to spend more than you have? for a lot of people, wastefulness is a sin to put it in moral terms. the virtue of the thrift is something that everybody ought to uphold at all times out of principle. then there is the question of is it immoral to spend more and

leave our children with debt? maybe we get some stimulus, some jobs, some pork for well- connected companies and mr. rhodes, but in the long run, the next generation will pay it off. i think it is telling that all the major tea party republican nominees in the senate, they are all pro-life conservatives on social issues. generally cannot look at the top house and senate -- generally cannot look at the top house and senate. -- generally, look at the top house and senate. the morality involved in being fiscally sound, i think, that is a big deal. i don't know if that is being heard here in washington. a lot of what is motivating the

two-party out there, a lot of that is clearly a moral issue. host: we have one more call, the independent line. gu caller: you like the sound of your voice too much. the republican strategy is taking this country and the wrong direction. wrong direction. people have gotten so fed up are now complaining because we want an extra 3%? they should be ashamed of themselves. that is the republican conference they had last weekend. goldwater was a cold wate

guy. he taught me what the true values of the republican party were. this is the first time of my life that i will be voting on the democratic ticket. the want to privatize medicare and social security cannot take the money of the surplus we have and use it to pay for [unintelligible] host: guest: thank you guest: social security is like a ponzi scheme to predict remember bernard madoff? he was taking money from people who he was intending to make an investment. there was nothing there. that is what social security is. but the time i am ready to retire, very soon, social security will start paying out more money to baby boomers then from what is taking in from

people like me who work. by that time i am ready to retire, there is the whole trust fund of social security is likely to be completely gone. this is a ponzi scheme it. we need to reform this in one way or another. just by mentioning the problems, the insolvency, all of the democrats in congress started booing him for just mentioning it was a problem. that is the definition of putting your head in the sand when you see a problem. it is like telling my kids it is time for bed time it. they cover their ears and start shouting. you can do as much as you like, social security is a train wreck. you have to do something. barack obama just said he will not raise taxes. what is he going to do? i don't know. democrats boo down any reform.

this is another moral issue for me. i think the baby boomers are refusing to fix this broken program. host: timothy carney, senior political columnist of the "washington examiner." thank you for coming on the show. guest: thank you. host: we will examine the question of the un and whether it is still relevant. bruce jones will be joining us for that discussion. first, we will take a look at the week's news.

♪

host: joining us from new york is bruce jones of the new york university. he is with the center of international corp. director and serve as a former senior adviser for the caucus -- for the office of u.n. secretary general. can you give us an explanation of what you did at the u.n. as far as your role there? guest: i helped on the israeli- palestinian negotiations at the time and then i came back in 2004 and help to the then secretary general put together a series of reforms. he wanted a series of changes made to have the u.n. do business. i help him put that set of ideas on the table. host: you were quoted earlier

this week. this is a little bit of what you said. you said, -- expand on that? guest: ike was saying, in the old debt -- in the old days of the u.n., they could push decisions through. the big factor in international politics right now is the rise of the new powers -- china, india, and brazil as well as south africa and turkey. they have greater influence in regional politics and a greater influence in global politics. it means the united states and europe needs to find new ways, new alliances, and strike up new relationships to get things done. that is only the beginning. i think this administration has done a good job in forging a new relationship with india at the u.n. on issues like

peacekeeping. we are still in the early days of that. the efforts to find new paths of cooperation is being seen outside of the u.n. i think a lot of the issues will come back precisely because it is the only place where the united states and emerging powers can cooperate on security issues. host: you mentioned china, india, and brazil being those that are withholding their power. can you give us an example of their influence? guest: i am less concerned with their influence in the un but more concerned about their influence in the world. china is an enormous economic actor, second biggest economy and the world. they have a great deal of influence. india is also a huge new economy and rising rapidly. it has a great deal of influence and its own region and in

international diplomacy. they can block issues and obstruct u.s. decisions in the u.n. the united states will need to find new ways to negotiate with those actors. india is one of the largest contributors to peacekeeping operations at the u.n. it is something similar to what happened in this country, no taxation without representation. they are not going to continue to put all this energy into peacekeeping operations without having more of a vote. host: as far as reforms go, what would you advocate as #one to make the u.n. and more effective body? guest: i think the big reform out there it is the reform of the u.n. security council. the united states will continue

to veto. two european countries have a veto. russia has a veto. and china has a veto, which is a historical accident in a sense. the question now, how do you bring india, brazil, south africa, indonesia, these countries that play major roles, how do you bring them into the decision making of the security council to take on more responsibility? is a question of taking on responsibility and being able to pursue objectives of the u.s. and in the region. -- of the u.n. in the region. host: the countries that currently hold the power have to

shepherd these countries or bring them into the body? guest: that is right. i think the u.s. has to take the lead in this. the united states will not give up seats. none of the emerging powers can forge a deal around these issues. i think the longer it waits, the worst the deal will be for the united states. i think it should act soon to forge a deal and bring these news actors into the security council on terms that are beneficial for the u.n. and for the united states. host: why do you think there is reluctance see? guest: i think there is a hesitation. if you have less power than you did before, there is a lot of discussion in the press about the relative decline of u.s. power.

the united states is vastly still the most powerful country in the world. in the world. i think the united states should get over the discomfort and move forward with most of the actors that will be coming in. these are not crazy countries by any stretch of the imagination. these are perfect sensible countries with major contributions to make. host: bruce jones is our guest from new york university. we will talk about the u.n. and if it is still relevant. you can contribute by phone. the numbers for democrats, republicans, and independence are on your screen.

c-span.org is the email. you said when the need for changes was seen, did he envisioned these changes of reform during his term? what kind of reforms did he want to see be put in place? guest: he proposed a reform for the security council to bring in some of these new actors and propose tough new measures on terrorism. he proposed a very controversial idea known as the responsibility to protect the notion that if a country like zimbabwe or sudan failed in its domestic responsibility to protect human rights of its own citizens, the security council could intervene to protect those human rights. that was endorsed by the general assembly. he wanted a new work, tougher measures on nuclear non- proliferation. those were blocked ironically by the bush administration.

he proposed a number of measures to strengthen against nuclear proliferation, terrorism, those kinds of issues, and at the same time, to bring these new actors and capture their interests to assist in those functions. host: has those traditions been carried on? guest: one of the other things he argued, and was criticized publicly for, was around the management of the u.n., which is quite weak. there were accusations of corruption and of a scandal. he has not been as focused on the substantive reforms. it in my mind, that is a mistake. you have to continue to improve performance on the key a threat out there.

host: memphis, tenn., our democrats line. caller: i think it is becoming irrelevant -- relevant. countries around the world are trying -- are forming alliances. i think the u.n. could become irrelevant if it can show that it can settle some of the issues with countries without standing armies and settle with them in their favor. the palestinian issue is one of the most leering examples of what the u.n. needs to finally show that they can solve. everybody is seeing that it needs to be solved and the injustice there. thank you. guest: i agree with half of your comments. i served in that arena for

years. i disagree on the point of view of -- i think the u.s. veto remains critically important at the u.n. the united states will not bring it important issues to the u.n. unless it knows its interests are protected. that is what the veto it does, it protect u.s. interests. that is important. that is important. international organizations work wednesday at mary the interests of powerful nations with key principles. that is what the u.n. was founded to do. it does not always get it right. it is that marriage of power and principle that makes it function when it does. i think the veto is extremely important. host: columbus, ohio, james on our independent line. caller: the u.n. continues to undermine the sovereignty of the

united states and of the middle- class. it is becoming a pawn to the chinese and indians and globalization. china is a communist country. 51% of every company is owned by the chinese government. we need a policy that represents the interests. we need to fix the imports. let's import from massachusetts or indiana. let's make things here. if the price of a t-shirt goes up, if you don't have a job, it does not matter what the price is. that is my opinion. i think the united nations is helping to undermine our middle- class and our power in the world. host: why don't you start with a claimed that the u.n. undermines the united states? guest: it is quite wrong. the united nations is founded on

the concept of sovereignty. in many ways, it is too conservative on sovereignty. in some extreme circumstances, the security council could vote to intervene against the country's sovereignty to protect human rights. that is the only circumstance that the u.n. to intervene. other than that, sovereignty is the key principle of the united nations. the u.n. has no power to intervene in the united states whatsoever. this is a myth of the u.n. on the economics, the u.n. is an organization that tackles international security questions. it has an economic arm but it is pretty powerless. the concerns about globalization are real. they do not have much to do with the united nations. the have to do with the world

bank and the world trade organization, the institutions in which the global economy is being regulated. there is very, very little that happens in international politics that the united states does not agree with. that is the reality of world power and is reflected by these institutions. host: san diego, calif., think you for waiting. john, democrats line. caller: i would like to talk about ahmadinejad's speech. the news guy said how could we allow this to happen? how could we allow ahmadinejad to speak at the u.n.? i think that is a very biased view presented by fox news. he is supposed to be a news die.

host: what is your question? caller: it goes back to the previous call. they get one side of the view about the u.n. i think mr. jones -- i thank mr. jones for coming on and presenting the other side. if you only watch the one if you only watch the one channel, all you are going to get is negative stuff. the guy that was in the un in the previous administration, he is a regular guy. that is virtually the only view that you get from that station. host: mr. jones, to the thought of ahmadinejad being able to speak at the u.n.? guest: it is a routine criticism. i am not one of those that think it is a bad thing. i think he looks crazy. i think there are very few things that undermines his

argument more than being out there in front of the world speaking. he looks nuts. his arguments are outrageous and he has to say them in front of the entire world. i think it helps undermine what shred of report he has with other countries. so i do not have a problem with ahmadinejad speaking at the u.n. i think it displays his views to the entire world. this is an issue that the united nations is still grappling with. does it try to say you have to conform to certain standards in order to participate with certain kinds of decision making? i am in favor of going further in that direction. i think the ability of countries to participate in a serious way

in major decision making bodies of the united nations should be tied to their performance on these issues. that does not mean that countries like libya should not be a part of the human rights council. we could have a human rights council composed of the united states, sweden, norway, denmark, and canada who would care? what would be the point? the whole point of those bodies is to confront those countries whose behavior is problematic. you have to have the human rights violators in the human rights council, otherwise, there is no point. i think that is with the idea of some standards for performance should come in for who gets to sit on what body at the u.n. host: the united nations came into existence in 1945. the current secretary general of the u.n. is --

albert on our republican line, go ahead. obama: why haven't the administration pulled the plug on colonialism? he had a shot to do his legacy in foreign policy but he has not spoken out against colonialism? could you explain that to me? guest: there is not much of it left. there are few countries left in the world under colonialism. he has talked to the united nations about the need to find new ways of cooperation against transnational cooperative the threats. i think his argument at the united nations has been -- has been pretty compelling. his argument at the un, i think, have been pretty

compelling. it host: your criticisms as far as what areas? guest: i am going to pick one, which is peacekeeping. last year, obama came to the united nations and did something quite unique. he hosted a meeting with other heads of state and particularly chose those countries that were major contributors to peacekeeping operations. he thanked them for their efforts, pledged to do more themselves. he made the case that u.n. peacekeeping -- he pledged to then find new ways for america to contribute to u.n. peacekeeping. there has been an effort to look at options, but it has not gone very far. there are good reasons for that but i think more could be done. he came back this year and said

now is the time to reinvigorate u.n. peacekeeping. host: we have a question off of twitter for you. a viewer asks -- guest: two answers because it depends on what kind of budget. we will not go into the boring details. the former budget of the u.n., the united states pays about 22%. then there are parts of the budget which are voluntary. the united states is often 40% or 50% of that funding. the united states is a huge founder of the u.n. i would highlight that it is instructive, when it is a voluntary question, the united

states pays more. they don't have to contribute those voluntary funds, but they do it because they see it the united states interests. i like to use the analogy is like the military analogy. he might have your largest defense along your borders, but you want somebody on a distant hill to see what threats are coming around the horizon. that is what the u.n. does. the united states is very preoccupied by an increase of the presence in somalia. if they were not there, the united states would have to be there themselves. the united nations does the distant-horizons security.

the the u.n. also has an infectious disease monitoring mechanisms all over the world. host: colorado, good morning. our independent line. caller: a quick question, observation. i am one of those that believe that these problems are so transient across the globe, 25 years from now, people will look back and say obama really did do a great job in terms of bringing american exceptional listen, helping to form coalitions, helping with middle east peace, the speech in egypt, all of those i think have been great things. it will be 25 years from now. my question specifically -- china becoming so powerful economically and in the military. they have not asserted themselves on the economic

scene. is there a reason that they have not become engaged? guest: there is a big debate about china and it is a really important question in international politics right now. they are enormously powerful economically. there are 20 years behind the united states in the military. when they say, and there are some reasons to believe this, they recognized that their economic growth came as a function of their integration in the global economy, a global economy underwritten by the united states, its rules written by the united states. they profited from that system. they have no interest in undermining that. when they argue is they want a "peaceful rise pirko they are not going to challenge the basic system. there are some reasons to believe that.

they are building up their military capacity and their foreign policy capacity. 10 years from now, they would be an imposition to challenge that basis. i am more of an optimist because i think the basic economic reality is there growth is dependent on an open, global system. there would be in real trouble if that broke down. i think we saw the proof of that during the financial crisis. it was the united states, europeans, and china that really put together the package of measures that slowed the global economy and began the process of economic recovery. china was an extremely active and constructive participant with the united states in forging that response. that was a critical test. they could have acted differently. they could have allowed the system to collapse but it would have suffered just as much as we did. it was in their interest to

rescue the global economy. you see the proof of the economic situation. that does not mean there will be a whole host of issues that we disagree with china. there is going to be a whole host the places that we disagree with china, but the underlying basis is going to be one that there are deeply shared interests within the global economy and with some aspects of global stability host: bruce jones is our guest. he was a former senior adviser at the office of the u.n. secretary general. we are talking about the role of the united nations and if it is still relevant. still relevant. caller: as far as the globalization of imports and the

land here in the u.s., we have so many farms and there are so many people out of work. cheap labor, i think, is a big problem. yesterday on c-span, they said it would cost us $8 more a year if we paid american workers and a little more money to work in the fields. i think that would put a lot of people back to work. people back to work. if you hire an illegal worker, they should take your company or you should be jailed. host: we will leave it there. i think people are familiar with

larger assembly meetings. what goes on behind the scenes? guest: i think the most important thing that the u.n. does is in the field. it has 20 peacekeeping operations around the world, 30 dealing with humanitarian crises. it helps countries run elections and fosters democracy in a number of countries. it has agencies that undertake the poorest countries on education and a whole host of things. i think that is what really counts at the u.n. it saves hundreds of thousands of lives every year through its peacekeeping operations and helps maintain stability in critical regions. they don't always succeed. they fail probably half of the time. but the ones that succeed make a huge difference. that is what really matters.

i can tell you how many committees, commissions, boards, agencies and all sorts of stuff. a lot of that is pretty irrelevant, but the key of what the core that they do is the response to an internal war, transnational threats, and that is very relevant. host: when is the discussions about the millennium been relevant -- benevolent world, how does that fit in to your thoughts of being relevant darks -- relevant? the millennium and development goals were a set of international goals established in 2000 which are very noble

aims. they said, let's all agree to cut poverty in half, to improve maternal health, child health. all of these are extremely important goals. our criticism is not with the goals. our criticism is that it had become to link these simply to discussion of aid spending. i do not think it is development aid spending that is actually helping to achieve those goals. this is about ending war, promoting stability, reforming the governance in side these countries, access to finance. this is really not development aid being the central part of the story. the obama administration in their speech got this right. their speech got this right. they said this is not just about aid but a whole broad approach to economic reform in the four

countries. give them access to trade it global finance and a whole sweep of the issues they need to be able to grow. development aid is a small part of the story. host: 10 more minutes with our guest. add on our line for democrats. caller: hello. caller: hello. i saw the president's o speech in front of the u.n. they cut short on the is really speech. i have not heard any reason why they were. why were they not there? why have we not heard about it darks guest: this is the first i have heard of this. i can only guess they had a bilateral meeting with the palestinians or something along that. i would be surprised if there was any kind of intended snub. host: on our independent line

from cambridge. caller: what is the real purpose of the united nations darks -- nations? [unintelligible] guest: the answer is very few. the united states has 53, 52, or a tiny number of soldiers fighting under the banner of the united nations. china has about 1000, mostly engineers, police, in haiti and another police -- and other places. that comes to an old tradition that peacekeeping should be undertaken by other countries not by the united states, u.k., russia, and france. that came about after the cold war. the long tradition is that it is countries like canada, brazil,

sweden, that contribute the forces. the logic being they have a huge competitive interests in these conflicts and you do not want them putting soldiers in to fight them out if you want more neutral countries helping to police stability. i forgot the first question. host: i did not take a note of it. this house to do with the budget question off of twitter. what percentage of the funding of the u.n. and its agencies is spent on political aspects vs. technical and humanitarian assistance? guest: it depends on what you countdown how you count the peacekeeping operation. their budget is about $8 billion per year. the regular budget is $6 billion per year. a small percentage goes to political issues. then you have to add in the world food program which is $5 billion per year which is purely humanitarian.

the u.n. development plan which is about $5 billion, unicef is about $2 billion. the estimate is around 30% of the budget going to peacekeeping, political mediation, and those types of issues. 70% goes to humanitarian or development issues. host: on our democratic line, robert in washington, d.c. caller: good morning, c-span. i was just wondering that people call a ahmadinejad a lunatic and he raves all the time. there is a video that you can google that is called, "the ring of power." this video states that there is a bunch of rich people in this world who started these wars and

a profit from all of them. it gives the idea that, you know, this is why we are having these problems because of these certain groups of people. it is called the ring of power. for people to make the statement that the things that this man is saying, of the things that have happened as far as 9/11, it is not untrue. host: mr. john starks -- mr. jones? guest: i am one of those who think bachman and a java's statements are crazy. -- i am one of those who think walkman and a dried -- rich people always make profits. that is true in history. there are real reasons that some countries go to war. it is rarely. some rich guy tries to manipulate events to go to war. that is in line with conspiracy

theory. even if that were true, it has no bearing on whether stockman in the job 0-- his statements are true. host: on our independent line. caller: i wanted to note the united nations gives voice to north korea still and what is it of their take? guest: north korea has a vote in the general assembly along with all of the other member states. no. career as a country has just about zero influence in the proceedings of the u.n. have to make a distinction between the general assembly where is it one country, one- vote system and the security council and peacekeeping operations where it is the more powerful countries that shape the operations. you can see that in the fact

that the security camera has passed resolutions restricting actions. the security cards and has been able to act. the fact that north korea has a vote in the general assembly does not restrict the security camera from acting in that way. that is the dynamic guys spoke about before with the dynamic incredible. every country is sovereign, one country, one-vote, etc. they get together in smaller groups to contain the risk posed by a country like north korea. host: she is our you and rep. what is your job? how, in your opinion, do you think she is doing? guest: i think she is doing an

outstanding job. she has to represent the u.s. positions in interest that the united nations. there is a second job which is more subtle which is to build coalitions for u.s. interests. she has done an outstanding job with that and it has made a huge difference in the way the united states is perceived that the you -- u.n. she has built a relationship with the block of african nations. she has done a lot to restore the u.s.'s standing in the u.n. which is great because they need their votes on it all -- on a whole host of issues. to go back to the issues i started with, she has really forged a critically important relationship with the government of india which matters because india is such an important peacekeeping operation. on any issue like saddam, the condo, somalia, india is likely

to be an important player. she has forged a really important relationship with india on those issues and she has played a critical role in helping the security care so hold iran. she has done a very good job but simultaneously pursuing american interests in building the broader coalition for action at the u.n. host: minneapolis, minnesota. go ahead. caller: with the peacekeeping forces in israel, they hold them out. out. what are they feeling about the frustration for them to decide to pull them out? if there are claiming that to be relevant, how do you make sense of that? i will listen offline. guest: this goes to a question

earlier. with rare exceptions, the united nations is able to have peacekeepers in ethiopia but only if they agree. if they want them gone, then they have to leave. a critical point to recognize is the primary responsibility for resolving conflicts challenges rests with the government in question. the u.n. can help and deploy forces to for see. the all the responsibility rests with the governments. it is a matter for governments to act. you would save, and this goes back to the argument earlier, the argument that when you reach extreme circumstances where the

government is so irresponsible that it is massively abusing the rights of its own citizens. they should be will the same we're going to stay in the moment this ourselves. it was adopted by the general assembly and the security capital. in practice, that is a tough thing to do. and takes a lot of money, and governments are not always willing to put that on the table for a country in where human rights are being abused. it is still a controversial doctrine. we are seeing right now in sudan and somalia its failure to implement that fully. it is an important conceptual about that auber to friction over time. host: from vermont, on our independent line. caller: i heard of you work in

agriculture in the united states that the employers can pay you less than minimum wage and that is why americans do not work in this field. with the globalization, as wages go up in other countries, our wages will go down until the whole world's wages are about the same. host: do you have a question about the united nations? caller: it is about the globalization. as wages in other countries go up, ours will go down. i just want to know how beneficial that is to us? host: mr. jones? guest: united nations has nothing to do with those issues. on a different topic, economic globalization, in my mind we are in an open economy. some of our jobs are overseas

and some jobs come here. host: last call from chattanooga, tennessee. go ahead. caller: i am calling regarding the united nations and their key players being mainly christian countries. countries. but there are killing all of the christians in dar for -- darfur. i'm would like to have his comments about this. thank you. guest: that is a very important question. i would not characterize it quite the way you did because the united nations, china for example, is a very important country in the united nations.

russia is an important country. i would not categorize it in terms of a western or christian influence. neither the united nations or anyone else has been able to stop the killings in darfur. the rate of killing has diminished dramatically over the last two or three years. the issue here is other countries with a great deal of influence in sudan have not really put their shoulder to the wheel in terms of taking the type of position they should take to stop the government from the actions they're taking in the south. now there is a whole nother question which is the upcoming referendum in southern sudan about a new round of war. this is one of the more bleak episodes in contemporary history. the u.n. does the live there --

does not look good there. and is a bleak statement about the current delegation. host: bruce jones talking to us about the united nations and its relevancy. thank you for taking the time to talk to us this morning. guest: think you for having me. host: we will look at the definition of a family. our guest is a sociologist named brian powell. he has a survey out on the american definitions of a family. we talk about what defines a family and how that is changing with our guest. he will be on in just a moment. we will be right back. we will be right back.

>> today on a book tv, it is the national book festival from our capital. live all the coverage begins at 9:30 a.m. eastern with author interviews, events, and your phone calls. for a list of authors and air times, visit booktv.org. >> the c-span the library is in the news this week. one writes that journalists on a deadline are using a not so secret source, the c-span video library. with every program since 1987, it is a great place to look for historical video or do educational research. you can find all free, on-line come any time. >> i really underestimated how did the job was. i had been the republican

minority whip. i had not been a minority leader. i do from minority whip to speaker overnight with a minority party that no one thought would be in the power to be in a wave of additional votes in 1994 which is the biggest one party increase. >> the new gingrich on his tenure as the house speaker, the state of politics today, and it possible to thousand told french -- presidential bid sunday on c- span. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we will talk about the definition of a family. joining us is brian powell, a sociology professor from indiana university. if i may, can i start with a quote from the book? you say the overriding objective of this book is to explore people's definition of a family. what led you to explore this

topic? guest: one question that many people are debating today is who should be getting the rights and obligations of a family? before you asked who should have the benefits of a family, who has the obligations or a right to family, you ought -- you have to ask the question, "who counts as a family"? host: you look at this as a series of surveys. what kind of information were you looking for? what kind of questions did you ask? guest: the questions we've focused on were very simple. we gave them different types of living arrangements and we asked, "do these count as a family"? husband, wife, children, does this account? virtually everyone said yes. we said housemates to live together. this is the other extreme. that was 10% the most

interesting group of people, living arrangements, they were cohabiting couples, that is a man and woman on married with children, and lesbian joke -- and lesbian couple with children, gay men with children, in all three cases there was quite a bit of variation. the majority of americans the fine all three of those living arrangements as a family. host: as far as the variations, tell us a little about that. guest: the variations are, in terms of same-sex couples with children, when reverse conducted the survey in 2003 and up 45% -- 45% of americans said those groups did not count as a family. by 2010, and we conducted this after this a book, the figure is now down to 33%. we are seeing a shift in

american definition of a family. host: what would you ascribe as far as the reason these attitudes are changing? guest: i think there are several factors going on. one factor is the open discussion that has been going on regarding same-sex couples, rights and benefits of same-sex couples. our survey in 2003 was completed right before a major court case that occurred in massachusetts. it led to the legalization of same-sex marriage in that state. there was a very strong reaction to that court case on both sides. on one thing that happened, there was then a huge discussion, brought -- both pro and con regarding the topic. what we found is that the more there is discussion, the more people are open about the topic, the more comfortable people end up about the topic. what happened in many states in

which same-sex marriages band in the election as far as ballot initiatives, that discussion led to an least being able to talk about these topics. in 2003 when we asked these questions, many people could not say the word "gay" or "was been" or they said in a whisper as if was a shame. what happened between 2003 and 2006 was a real shift in which saying negative things about same-sex couples resulted in people becoming more comfortable. in a way, that was good publicity. host: as far as the survey, how many people did you talk to? guest: in 2003 and 2006, 1500 people. host: as far as those who have gained acceptance over the years, how does that compare to the public at large? have there been any comparisons

and how they feel about these definitions of a family? guest: this is a nationally representative sample so it is a good snapshot of the public at large. host: brian powell is our guest and we are talking about the definitions of a family. definitions of a family. you can ask him questions about his findings. the numbers are on your screen. the numbers are on your screen. the census department put out an ad, it specifically highlighted if they were gay, lesbian, or transgendered. i wanted to show the people at home this advertisement.

>> taking 10 minutes to complete the form is important. the sentence -- the census must count every person living in the united states including lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and a chance gendered persons -- trans-gendered persons. this insures your community perceives the correct amount of political representation and funds for the next 10 years. host: as far as a federal agency putting out this type of fat, what does it mean to you as far as the acceptance people have and the openness to talk about it? guest: i think this is an indication that there is a recognition, there is a wider range of families and people in the united states than what is reflected from censuses in the past. there is an acknowledgment that

there is more than one type of living arrangement among more than one type of family. host: we were talking about the benefits that families have. where do you think we are as far as federal acceptance or state and local acceptance of the changing definitions of family and what does that mean for benefits for them? guest: there is a great deal of variation around the country. if you look at the electoral campaign this year, you find that many different states have many different types of policies. different parties are focusing on very different agendas. in taxes, the republican platform -- texas, they say that it should not be redefined to include same-sex couples. they have the were couples in quotation marks to say they should not even be a couple. there are court -- greater move

toward benefits. the idea that you can visit your family. there has been a great deal of variation. host: st. louis, mich., you are a -- st. louis, missouri, you are up first. you are on, sir. go ahead. caller: i do not believe same- sex marriages should be considered a family. they are not even a legal marriages because the bible states it is between a man and a women and not those to participate and the homosexuality of any kind. they will not be welcome in the kingdom of heaven. i believe it is just not right. we should go back to what the bible says. guest: how much a -- host: how much is shaped by religious

beliefs? guest: indeed many people do talk religion when they spoke about the definition of a family. a great deal of people gave comments that were very similar to the man we just heard. at the same time, we also heard a very different type of religious explanation. when we asked a question about what they think about the primary factor between someone's sexuality -- was a parenting, environment, ko'd's will blacks a -- god's will? it was unexplainable, but it had to be something beyond environment or genetics. interestingly, they said it was god's will. they, too, thought that the definition of a family should really include a wider range in

typically has occurred in the past. in other words, religion has been used and is being used both to support the idea of same-sex couples and in part to not support it. host: and going back to 2003, is that similar or has that changed since the time of the first survey to the second? survey to the second? guest: what we found between 2003, 2006, and 2010 is the people who gave the "god's will" definition were the most liberal. regarding the issue of the using a religious explanation to say that same-sex couples should not be counted, there were many people who said they were very religious and they wanted to be very fair. they said that because of the use of the bible or other types

of religious texts that the focus on context of what is fair, what is love, they used a religious explanation to basically say that same-sex couples should count as families. host: on our republican line from new hampshire. go ahead. caller: my question keys around the word "marriage." it has a cultural, religious, and legal implications. when you speak in terms of religion, there are no examples of homosexual marriage in the bible, okay? culturally, there has been a huge shift from where we once were to where we are today. the question then is a where will this go? in terms of health, is the health of a homosexual union the same -- i am thinking of aids and the implication of fostering

more aids and the cost to society, if you could respond. guest: sure. let me speak about the aids issue first. and is a very interesting, the, if you buy the argument that health factors should be a determination of what happens in determination of what happens in terms of a marriage, some people might make the argument that the only group that should be allowed to get married and lesbians because they have the lowest rate of aids. i personally think that type of argument -- i think the argument about who should get married and you should not is one that the book does not explicitly focus that much john. i want to differentiate one thing here. i am speaking about what americans say. the issue regarding what we talk about any book is not my opinion, but where americans are going. regarding the issue of same-sex marriage, the book focuses

mostly on the definition of family, but one thing we have found is that americans are, indeed, moving towards the idea that same-sex couples should be allowed to get married. the figures keep going up. are mars to a recent survey in 2010, the figure was 20 -- 22% who said that same-sex marriages should be allowed to get married. that is the same month -- same number as two recent national surveys. host: when you did this survey, there were three groups -- exclusive tests -- exclusivists, moderates, and inclusivists. can you break down why you categorize them as such? guest: we used late in cost analysis, technically speaking, which is a way to figure out how

all different types of responses can cluster together. we were able to identify three groups of people. on one side are exclusionists. they said same-sex couples, with children, without children, they do not count as families. they also debated the question about heterosexual cohabited couples. they were mixed on that. on the other side were in collusion -- inclusionists. they said all of these types of living arrangements can count as families as long as it meets sort of how the family operates. do they act like a family? does it look like a family? does it care like a family? the group in the middle, in many ways to my office and to me -- co-authors and me, the moderate

group are those who say that same-sex couples with children count as families. in other words, this is a group that makes some kind of distinction regarding same-sex couples but they do include same-sex couples in the definition of a family. host: the opinion changes when children into the picture. guest: absolutely. it shifts the definition of a family. why is that the case? the automatic reaction is that children make a family. the people who were moderate, many of them explained that it is not just children, per say, but what children signify. they signify to many of the moderates that there really is some real connection going on, there is some sense of responsibility, some sense of commitment, some duration. as one person said, a guarantee. it is not just children but what they signify. host: 4 myers, fla., on our line

for independents. are you there? evan from ft. myers. we move on to cleveland, ohio, on our republican line. caller: good morning. i wanted to make a comment about how people use religion as a means to say that same-sex couples cannot be defined as a family. jesus taught that you are supposed to love everyone for your they are. i do find it wrong when people do not include gays or lesbians as a family. to me, a family is people who love their children, take care of them, and are there for their children.

one thing that bothers me the most is when people say that gays should not be able to adopt. i think that is very unfair to a child. what would you rather have -- a gay parent or be in a foster home? i guarantee the child would say they would rather -- they did not care as long as they got a loving, caring family. when it comes down to it, that is all that matters is if the couple, or single people, can take care retry love them. i do think it should matter what sex they are as long as you take care of your child and that is all that really matters. guest: the response given is what many people were arguing. when you ask them to talk about their definition of family. i think there's a real this -- a real distinction.

is this the structure of a family that is defined by law, religion, or is this based on function? how does a family after the operate? as a family care for people you go for all efforts whatsoever to be able to get your daughter to get a visa to study abroad? is it watching your child trying to play tennis having no idea of against the wall of a building for a couple of hours simply because they want to do it and you will just be there for your child tax is it simply waking up really early in the morning, shoveling your sidewalks of the rest of your family will not have to deal with the snow? these are all signals or signs of how families work, but families do. i think this is one of the biggest distinctions we found in our interviews.

a small percentage of people, and this number is getting smaller, is focusing on structure and religious edicts. wonders focus on what families really do. host: this all goes back to the legal question of whether a couple can get married. guest: the question becomes if a family is based on what you do, there are legal benefits to a family status. basically, what we found is most of the moderates and nearly all of the of inclusionists believe if you are a family, same-sex couples should have the the rights and benefits of families or other people. those could be hospitalization, and insurance, a to be something just as simple as being able to get the family rates at a park.

host: what about on married couples who are living together? -- unmarried couples? guest: unmarried heterosexual couples are also caught in our search a bit -- survey. on married couples without children, the majority of people do not define them as a family. those with children, the figure is going up to about 75%. among the inclusion nests -- inclusionists and the moderates, those groups, basically, they believed family rights should be given to them. host: whether they be same sex or heterosexual, does it take into determination how long have

been together? guest: yes. they said they would not consider them as a family because there is no permanence, there is no duration. what we did in 2006 is we asked the question if they did not count as a family, what if they lived together with 10 years? with that, the numbers increased. as long as there is some other sign that there's a real commitment, then they are defined as families. host: destin, florida, on our democratic line. caller: hello. thank you. my question is not so much whether or not on leave religion

argument, but was there anything that had to do with the moral implications, not necessarily derived from religious beliefs would rather just a universal morality and whether or not it was ok to define the institution of marriage including a man and a man, a woman and a woman. the second one is, why can there not be a separation of the definition of marriage and what is given to these individuals who have a hospital visits and other rights you mentioned this morning. really, my question comes down to the morality. what were your statistics for that? the second part was why can there not be the right to marry and the rights given to people as two different issues. thank you. guest: i think one can distinguish between these

issues, but most people do not. issues, but most people do not. most of the exclusionists said they should not be able to get married. the people in the middle, the moderates, were really right in the middle. regarding the issue of morality, they talked about it in many different ways. most people who said same-sex couples do not count as a family, most of those actually did use a religious frame in terms of that. many people who were in many people who were in collusion -- inclusionists they said it was not fair that they did not have the same rights. they said it was not fair that they did not count as a family. they are using the notion of fairness as a part of what morality is. it is the question is how we think about morality. i think all of the groups were talking about, when they were

given answers, that they were not thinking about morality, but that is what they were focusing on. host: from missouri, are independent line. independent line. caller: when people are allowed to vote in the california, they vote down a marriage. in massachusetts, they are not allowed to take a vote on that even though they pay the taxes for the legislature. my idea is [unintelligible] it has always been traditional marriage. they started out -- then they wanted to adopt children. when the children start school, they want to force society to recognize and accept their illegal situation. that is the deception here. they have their foot in the door. this is illegal. there is no way you can justify

this. thank you. host: mr. powell? guest: i would guess that she is an exclusionist. she thinks it is immoral and wrong. i will point out that the vast majority of people in our survey said -- they did not have that type of reaction. i think it is an important point she makes about what happens in elections verses what happens in a survey such as ours. i want to make two points. first, in the case of california people talk about the public will. i want to make it clear with the public will was. it was 52% in california who voted in favor of proposition 8 which is voting in favor of banning same-sex couples. think about it this way. a couple of years ago in

california, about a slightly more than half said that same- sex couples should not be allowed to get married and slightly less than half said they should. it was about 50/50. the other point is that the reason there is a distinction between our survey and what happens in elections is that our survey is that distinction -- have a distinction between voters and non-voters. one difference we found in our survey which was very dramatic was the generational split in how people thought about same- sex couples. we find that those over the age of 65 or more likely to be in the category of exclusionists and more likely to have a traditional definition. as you move down the age group, you end up with a much larger number of people who were moderates or in occlusion --

inclusionists. the younger you are, the less likely you are to vote. there is a distinction between what we see in the election did what we see in surveys. the other point i want to make about this is what this woman just said off, falling into the inclusion this -- inclusionist category, it to go back just 45 years ago there was a huge discussion regarding intervracil marriages. many thought it was immoral and illegal. in fact, the vast majority of people that absolutely opposed to interracial marriage, they were opposed at a much greater degree than what we have today. we wonder how people have thought that. i think we will think the day --

think the same regarding same- sex couples. host: the discussion always seems to mix this up. guest: many people make that argument. some people say that marriage -- there should maybe the legal rights as opposed to marital rights and a marital rights should be based on religion. many people went even further that in some religious groups, allow same-sex couples to get married. they should be able to get married in religious ceremonies and those who do not cannot. that is what people argue. some people argue with the server is. host: from pennsylvania, thank you for waiting. caller:, sexuality is not god's will because he would not condemn his will in his word,

the bible. the bible. the survey that is being used shows that we are becoming an immoral nation and the constitution was written for moral people. this is why we are having so many problems in our country. host: mr. powell? guest: well, the question regarding morality and whether or not we are caught -- becoming a "immoral country" is beyond the book. we are looking at where americans are going and what they are thinking. when we look through the years and we look back this is how we look at same-sex couples and the rights and obligations today. will this be the same wave -- way when we looked at people from different religions getting

married or people from different ethnic groups which was one taboo. that is interesting to look toward the future. the point of the book is not to say are we moral or not. the point of the book is to talk about where americans have their opinions and where we will likely be moving. most americans probably are not sharing the position that was just expressed in that phone call. host: 10 mark that -- 10 more minutes for our guest, brian powell. we are talking about the definition of the family. he is a sociology professor at indiana university. bridgeport, conn., you are next on our independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. there are three points i would like to make and i will say this as humble as i can. and is very dangerous to try to intellectualize your faith.

there are many. it boils down to three things. one, we were all born in sin. we all have a sinful nature. god is totally against, you know, same-sex couples marrying. in the book of leviticus, if anyone wanted to find out if it was wrong, read leviticus. dodd gives the lost to israel. he tells them -- god is the laws to israel. it says it is abomination for a man to live with a man, a woman with a woman, or animals. you can intellectualize about what a great philosophers have said, but it is a sin. host: your other points? caller: it has caused a tremendous amount of damage

emotionally to children who are born and raised in a family like that. host: this is your polling address the impact on children? guest: here is what people said about children. first, i just want to mention the point about leviticus. i am not a religious scholar. i have studied the bible when i was a kid, but i do recall that in leviticus, there is a long list of what you are not allowed to do. one prohibition is that you should be -- not be using birth control. regarding the issue of leviticus, people do mention leviticus explicitly within the interviews and other biblical texts. regarding children, they did bring the issue several

different ways. they need to be in an environment in which they are protected, cared for, and in which they are loved. the inclusionists and the moderates believe the same-sex couples were able to do that. one other comment regarding the issue of children. the reality of this is the children also live in single- parent and same-sex couple households. when we keep hearing the only good housing for a child is with a biological father and mother which even pre-empts adoptive families. think about what the implications are for children to hear that they are not a real family, they are not authentic. the idea that same-sex couples and the children from these different household are not seen as a family may be much more damaging than anything else. host: from north carolina and,

jim on our republican line. caller: mr. powell is doing this survey. we seem to be having a problem in this country with [unintelligible] we cannot define marriage. we cannot be fine with the definition of a family is. when we leave god's word, we leave every anchor that there is for truth. if we want the definition, that is where you find them. he said that his book is to find out what the feeling of america is on this, but these types of books tend to sway american opinion. it causes people to form opinions who otherwise have not given much thought about it.

when we publish these books, it does sway american opinion. if we do not get back to god, as some many callers have indicated, if we do not get back to that we are seriously in trouble. these types of surveys -- i would like to know what kind of cross section he has for his survey. host: we will leave it there. the cross section of your survey? guest: which party you want me to answer first. to answer first. host: the cross section for your survey. guest: this is a national cross section. we had a disproportionate people -- number of people over the age of 65 who were more likely to be exclusionist. we had a large group regarding believes, educational background, regarding the bible whether it is the word of god, inspired by the word of god. it represents america on that.

the point regarding religion, i do want to make one. . this focus on religion that keeps on being referred to here may well be a very attractive argument for those people who fall into the exclusionist group. they almost never used religious explanations in the moderate group to say anything negative about same-sex couples. with this religious explanation with this religious issue, it is a decreasing supplies for a number of people. one final point i want to make regarding this book, very seriously, what i wanted to know and what we wanted to know is how is america changing? we may have opinions about what

the families should be. we all come in with different definitions. our interest was to find out what people define as a family. the idea that we should know what americans think, that ideas suggests that we should know -- we should not have any idea where the public is. i think that is a very dangerous position. host: orlando, fla., on our democratic line. caller: the morning, c-span. did you deal with the issue of adultery and how many states still have it on the books yet they are not enforced? that is it. guest: we did not ask any questions regarding adultery. a couple of people made references to it. some people said if a man can cheat on his wife then same-sex couples should be able to be families as well. it was just a rare event that

people made that observation. host: our last call. from illinois on our independent line. caller: i have three questions. if there are less than 2% of these americans who are homosexual, why is it that the remaining 90% have to except their way of life as mainstream? if the relationship of a homosexual couple is the key factor to them, they want their recognition, why is classification as a full union insufficient but it has to be called a "marriage"? there are a number of states that recognize the marriages or unions. they are civil unions, but that is not sufficient. they have to be called a "marriage" to be accepted by the homosexual community. if there are 3 billion people in our country and your survey on our country and your survey on the